K., a Ukrainian national from Odesa, applied for asylum in France. Her application was rejected by OFPRA in June 2021. K. appealed this decision, claiming that if returned to her country she would face persecution or serious harm from Ukrainian authorities and from her social environment, due to pro-separatist political opinions that were imputed to her after her grandson participated in a demonstration. She also stated that due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a situation of indiscriminate violence prevailed in the Odesa region.

The National Court of Asylum concluded that the applicant’s statements were insufficient and unsubstantiated, and that they did not make it possible to establish the facts that led to her departure from Ukraine. However, the court also noted that K.’s application for international protection should also be examined in light of the current situation in the Odesa Oblast.

The court further specified that that the security situation in Ukraine can currently be characterised by a significant level of violence, which differs in degree from region to region in terms of intensity and impact on the civilian population. For this reason, the court stated that the mere invocation of Ukrainian nationality is not sufficient, by itself, to establish the merits of an application for international protection.

The court, citing data published by various organisations (UNHCR, IOM, OCHA, ACLED, Human Rights Watch) also stated that almost 91% of all registered security incidents took place in the Eastern and Southern macro-regions of Ukraine, where the Odesa Oblast is located. However, the court added that while Odesa had been impacted by multiple attacks, which targeted both military structures and civilian homes, the number of registered security incidents and civilian victims had been relatively low, setting it apart from the rest of the Southern macro-region.

The court determined that a situation of indiscriminate violence prevailed in the Oblast of Odesa, but that its intensity does not lead to establish that K.’s mere presence there would entail a real risk of serious harm.

The court proceeded to examine K.’s individual circumstances and concluded that she would find herself in a situation of great vulnerability if returned to Odesa, given that as an older woman suffering from various pathologies, she would be particularly isolated and would not be able to benefit from her family’s support, since her family members from Odesa have joined her in France.  For this reason, the court ruled that K. would be at risk of serious harm if returned to Odesa and granted her subsidiary protection.